I have further noted that none of the parties addressed the Registrar or the court specifically on the implications of registration of the Appellant in Kenya prior to its application in Uganda. I have considered the evidence of the registration of the Appellant in Kenya and it is not necessary to consider whether the Appellant is registrable on account of the earlier registration in Uganda of the Respondent if this issue was considered. Secondly the legal provisions for consideration of registration would have been slightly different. As earlier on held the principles to be applied in an appeal are well established. I will again cite Order 43 rule 20 of the Civil Procedure Rules which permits the court on the basis of exhaustive evaluation of evidence to reconsider the decision of the lower tribunal or court on a new basis. Order 43 rule 20 provides that: "Where the evidence upon the record is sufficient to enable the High Court to pronounce judgment, the High Court may, after resettling the issues, if necessary, finally determine the suit, notwithstanding that the judgment of the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has proceeded only upon some ground other than that on which the High Court proceeds. In other words the court can decide the appeal on some other ground and issue provided it is supported by the evidence. These principles were earlier referred to from the judicial precedents of Ephraim versus Francis SCCA No. 10 of 1987, Selle and another v Associated Motor Boat Company Ltd and others [1968] 1 EA 123, Peters v Sunday Post Limited [1958] 1 EA 424 as well as the English authorities in King versus Thompson [1914] 2 KB 99, John Harris (1910) Criminal Appeal Cases page 285 and William Robert Powell (1921) Criminal Appeal Cases, 23. The principles are that the duty of the first appellate court is to re – consider and evaluate the evidence, and come to its own conclusions. In Selle and another v Associated Motor Boat Company Ltd and others [1968] 1 EA 123 it was held that the Appellate Court must reconsider the evidence, evaluate it by itself and draw its own conclusions. The first Appellate Court is not bound ―necessarily to follow the trial judge‘s findings of fact if it appears either that he has clearly failed on some point to take account of particular circumstances or probabilities materially to estimate the evidence.‖ It is my holding that the Registrar did not take into account the prior registration in Kenya of the Appellant yet it was the most material matter